* On patch "Remove all #inclusions of asm/system.h"
@ 2012-03-29 13:34 Stefan Richter
2012-03-31 19:31 ` David Howells
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Richter @ 2012-03-29 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Howells; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi David,
commit 9ffc93f2 "Remove all #inclusions of asm/system.h" removes a lot of
includes while its parent commit 96f951ed "Add #includes needed to permit
the removal of asm/system.h" adds only a few. Some of the files modified
by commit 9ffc93f2 now only work due to indirect inclusion, don't they?
For example, drivers/firewire/{core-device,core-topology,ohci,sbp2}.c use
smp_rmb()¹ and used to include asm/system.h. Now they do not include
asm/barrier.h. Is this by mistake or on purpose?
(I only noticed the commit come in; I did not get any build error yet.
The mentioned files now get asm/barrier.h via linux/spinlock.h and
certainly via other ways as well.)
--------
¹) so does drivers/firewire/net.c but it missed to include asm/system.h
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-===-- --== ===-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: On patch "Remove all #inclusions of asm/system.h"
2012-03-29 13:34 On patch "Remove all #inclusions of asm/system.h" Stefan Richter
@ 2012-03-31 19:31 ` David Howells
2012-03-31 20:44 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-01 1:46 ` David Howells
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Howells @ 2012-03-31 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Richter; +Cc: dhowells, linux-kernel
Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> commit 9ffc93f2 "Remove all #inclusions of asm/system.h" removes a lot of
> includes while its parent commit 96f951ed "Add #includes needed to permit
> the removal of asm/system.h" adds only a few. Some of the files modified
> by commit 9ffc93f2 now only work due to indirect inclusion, don't they?
>
> For example, drivers/firewire/{core-device,core-topology,ohci,sbp2}.c use
> smp_rmb()¹ and used to include asm/system.h. Now they do not include
> asm/barrier.h. Is this by mistake or on purpose?
I tried to make sure allyesconfig worked for x86_64 and a bunch of defconfigs
worked. I can't guarantee that that got 100% coverage. I also knew there
would be some breakage from the base Linux kernel having moved on by the time
Linus pulled myu patches - though I don't know if this is the case here (I
suspect not).
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: On patch "Remove all #inclusions of asm/system.h"
2012-03-31 19:31 ` David Howells
@ 2012-03-31 20:44 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-01 1:46 ` David Howells
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Richter @ 2012-03-31 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Howells; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Mar 31 David Howells wrote:
> Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > For example, drivers/firewire/{core-device,core-topology,ohci,sbp2}.c use
> > smp_rmb()¹ and used to include asm/system.h. Now they do not include
> > asm/barrier.h. Is this by mistake or on purpose?
>
> I tried to make sure allyesconfig worked for x86_64 and a bunch of defconfigs
> worked. I can't guarantee that that got 100% coverage. I also knew there
> would be some breakage from the base Linux kernel having moved on by the time
> Linus pulled myu patches - though I don't know if this is the case here (I
> suspect not).
It's not a problem; they now get barrier.h via spinlock.h. I just
wondered whether absence of #include <asm/barrier.h> in those files had a
deeper non-obvious meaning. Since it doesn't I will just put that include
in them next time around when I do some housekeeping there.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-===-- --== =====
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: On patch "Remove all #inclusions of asm/system.h"
2012-03-31 19:31 ` David Howells
2012-03-31 20:44 ` Stefan Richter
@ 2012-04-01 1:46 ` David Howells
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Howells @ 2012-04-01 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Richter; +Cc: dhowells, linux-kernel
Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> It's not a problem; they now get barrier.h via spinlock.h. I just
> wondered whether absence of #include <asm/barrier.h> in those files had a
> deeper non-obvious meaning. Since it doesn't I will just put that include
> in them next time around when I do some housekeeping there.
I suspect they should #include asm/barrier.h directly rather than relying on
spinlock.h. There's no guarantee that on every arch spinlock.h will pull in
asm/barrier.h, I think...
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-04-01 1:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-03-29 13:34 On patch "Remove all #inclusions of asm/system.h" Stefan Richter
2012-03-31 19:31 ` David Howells
2012-03-31 20:44 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-01 1:46 ` David Howells
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.